« | »

Obama-Care Would Pass If Not For Men

We almost missed this amazing insight from a deep thinking Democrat, via The Hill:

Dem lawmaker: Congress could pass health reform if men were ‘sent home’

By Jordan Fabian – 01/24/10

A female Democratic lawmaker in footage released Sunday said Congress could pass healthcare if female lawmakers "sent the men home."

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) said that both Republican and Democratic women members of Congress understand how to care for relatives and thus want the healthcare system to change.

"We go to the ladies room and the Republican women and the Democratic women and we just roll our eyes," she said. "And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the healthcare bill, if we sent the men home…" at which point she was interrupted by loud applause.

"You know why? I’m not trying to diss the men but I’m telling you it’s the truth that every single woman there has been responsible for taking care of a [relatives] and so we think we can find a common ground there," she said.

The New Hampshire lawmaker’s comments come as Democratic leaders are debating alternative ways to pass the healthcare overhaul. Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate primary has stalled the debate.

Yes, that would solve everything.

Lest we forget, it was probably women voters (and legislators) who gave us Prohibition – and God knows how many other doomed social experiments.

But notice that this is from the ‘Live Free Or Die’ state.


(Thanks to NickB for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, January 25th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

25 Responses to “Obama-Care Would Pass If Not For Men”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Yup, by logical assumption, O-mama is not a man.

    He is also not an American

    Not black

    Not honest

    • proreason says:

      He is bi-racial, multi-national, multi-religious and ambiguously sexual.

      It’s not that he is obviously queer, just that his behaviour is ambiguous. Neat as a pin, but loves basketball. Slender, but pretend athletic. Calls women “honey” but never notices women’s looks. Arigula and waffles. Cultured, but feisty.

      I think it’s all deliberate and designed. His handlers picked him because he naturally straddled so many categories, and have taught him how to be inoffensive while still allowing people to read into his behaviour whatever they want.

      And there is even more to it than that:
      – note that he speaks to different audiences with different accents and speech patterns.
      – he also speaks to audiences that differ politically with different messages (the famous “bitter clinger” comment)
      – he also adjusts his speech to be “intellectual” or “everyday” as needed
      – and note the non-verbal signals: the garden, the loving father, bowling in the white house, golf, the “romance” with linebacker ThunderButt, basketball

      It’s all designed. There isn’t a shred of reality in it.

      We should expect a flood of new behaviours that will appeal to Tea Partiers in the coming months. If he doesn’t appear in tee shirts or a plaid shirt I’ll be surprised. Look for the backwards ball cap. He will probably reveal his deep interest in baseball this summer. Look for him to appear at Nascar events. Someone will overhear him listening to Toby Keith. He may reveal that he has taken to listening to Hannity some days.

      The biggest phoney of all time.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      By saying nothing, he says it all

      By not offending anyone, he offends everyone

      By noticing nothing, he is noticed by all

      By being no one, is everyone.

      Such logic is perhaps very “Zen” But is also very empty. It’s something that has my curiosity aroused because I see kids today very into this new, chic, but not new thing. FOX said last night that kids are not excited about getting a driver’s license because they’d rather be involved socially on the “electronic” level, on twit—er, or facebook, or all the other things that involve being social but not in the same room.

      This is dysfunctionality on steroids. You can say “F—- you!” to someone without any of the repercussions. You can manipulate people from a distance and get our jollies while ticking people off. Or, ogle someone without having to deal with the reality of rejection. Real, hard, cold rejection.

      No longer responsible for your own emotions.

      Obama epitomizes that. Fakery. Looks. Image. Appearance is everything. We used to say in the USAF “appearance is reality” because if that’s what everyone believes, then they have nothing else to go on when dealing with it. That means that without the cumbersome back-story that provides the real truth, everyone simply goes on instinct and that comes with all the problems it has. But, largely society has always functioned like that only now, without even desiring to seek the truth and reality of anything, we just operate on the surface level and —so be it.

      Anyone with a lick of sense will tell you though that that’s a very dangerous precedent and precipice as well. I think we’re sliding off that precipice into the dark chasm of relativism. The president “we” elected is the perfect embodiment of style over substance and all that comes with it.

      It’s the cool-looking toy in the commercial that’s broken 5 minutes after you take it out of the box and was never that awesome thing you saw on TV in the first place.

      The obvious result being, just as you would expect, disappointment, frustration and anger. “I WANT MY TOY!!!!”

      But what you really mean is, “My happiness is gone.” Or was taken. Or was somehow otherwise usurped. And we don’t want to admit that it was ourselves who are ultimately responsible for OUR OWN happiness.

      And the trick is….the political trick….unlike Hasbro having to deal with unhappy kids with a busted widget….the government has to deal with how to deflect and USE that anger to their advantage without it backfiring on them. So they use:

      Blame Bush

      Bank Execs are evil

      They were trying to steal your money (ignore that it was really Reid, Dodd, Franks, Pelosi who were really the ones stealing it)

      Car Makers are greedy (ignore that the unions preferred to build crap because they refused to admit that robots make better cars)

      And on and on;

      It’s all PACKAGING

      Style, sound-bites, emotions, excitement, sex, getting the people to buy into their crap.

      They want you stupid. They want you angry. They want you to do what they want.

      Rise up America. It’s not balls that scare them. It’s BRAINS

    • jobeth says:

      Now if he shows up somewhere with a pair of sunglasses adorned with tea bags dangling off the sides and a home made poster sign…That will be the last straw! lol

  2. White_Polluter says:

    I just wish he’d wear a tie. He looks like a slob.

  3. canary says:

    This is the new propaganda illusion Obama & liberals are using everytime they open their mouth. That republicans are all for Obama. It’s meant for ignorant who fall in the category of going with the crowd. Conservatives are too smart for that.

    Surely, taken out of context, all the female lawmakers sitting on toilets saying ..”if we sent the men home…” meant if Reid & corrupt democrats would quit working through the night cheating & changing the words of the bill every night.
    Now the democrats complaining it was the Republicans doing it to ruin their Christmas. Obamas an abomination of lies like never before in history.

  4. AngryD says:

    Funny, that. My research over the last few years indicates that women are not particularly adept at successful leadership, so I’m not surprised that if the men left the room they’d screw up both representative government (You are there to do what your constituents tell you, not to ‘care for relatives.’ 60% of the country hates the bill, therefore your responsibility is to vote it down.) and health care.

    Let’s consider that over the last 5,000 years of recorded history, the ONLY time women ever stepped into power is when men allowed them to do so.

    Fact: Women comprise 50% of the population of the planet.

    Fact: In a meritocracy, talent and skill rise to the top of the pile.

    With perfectly equal representation (actually, several of my sources indicate that the worldwide population is slightly MORE female than male, 50.8% to 49.2%) women should be equally represented in leadership roles throughout history alongside men.

    Nothing against women, but in most of the world they’re not in power at all. And don’t say it’s because men hold them down: you have equal numbers. If you were equally talented you would be able to overcome those challenges without men deciding to gift power to you.

    Why should the US government give priority to “Women-owned” businesses? Can’t you stand on your own and make your business successful without resorting to a gender card?

    Why should the NCAA eliminate men’s sports because women’s sports have to feed off the ticket sales from the boys? There is ONE women’s college basketball team that makes a profit (UCONN).

    I don’t expect anyone to like this, but my conclusion is that if women were half as good as they think they are at governing or managing then they wouldn’t even need to ask for concessions from males. They would simply be able to compete on equal footing and would therefore hold approximately 50.8% of the positions of power, authority, and responsibility across the globe. Since all of humankind sprung from approximately the same level and location, women have had just as much time as men to become top dog.

    Now is the time for someone to call me sexist. I’m okay with that, because until you can show me a statistic that says 50.8% of world leaders are female, I’m still going to be right, no matter how unpopular the fact is. Please do not point to single female leaders like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleeza Rice. They are aberrations to the statistical curve. In the meritocracy that is western civilization, the largest portion of women is unable to rise to the top and gain political power. The fact that a few do here and there is an indicator that the system works and it is certainly possible for more to do so– leading to the question: Why haven’t they?

    In fact, that very argument seems to undermine the case that women are equally competent as a whole when compared to men. If that were true, then why aren’t there MORE Thatchers and Rices out there?

    I know. Because I’m sexist.


    • proreason says:

      I don’t agree with you. I don’t think there is evidence that women are less successful as leaders than men. The track record of both is pretty bleak, frankly.

      The argument that women have historically not held as many leadership positions is weak. Until very recently, women didn’t have the opportunity, for many reasons that I’m sure you could itemize if you wanted to.

      I also don’t think there is sufficient evidence to say women are better leaders. Give them a couple of centuries and we will know more.

      Thatcher, of course, is a premier example of great female leadership, but there are others. Queen Elizabeth was probably the greatest leader in English history, rivalled only by Churchill. Queen Victoria didn’t do badly either. Many women have built very successful businesses in recent years as well.

      As for the silly comments by Ms Shea-Porter, they are evidence of liberalism, not bad female judgement. Turn your thoughts to Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram, Liz Cheney and the many other good conservative women out there, AngryD.

    • jobeth says:

      Pro…We can ad Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay to that list of great women leaders.

      AngryD…Blanket statements about either sex is unfair to both. There are great in both and lousy in both.
      I agree completely with Pro.

      AngryD…Your comment to Pro…is correct. He does use respect when he disagrees.

  5. AngryD says:

    Thank you for the respectful dialog. I appreciate it.

    Women’s studies courses will tell you that women have not held positions of power or leadership in history because men have held them down– thus leading to a primary cause question: Why, throughout recorded history, has not one female-only revolt taken place?

    We’re not talking about women’s suffrage, which was actually a number of men limiting their own power rather than women competing to earn it. I’m talking about societies that systematically brutalize and abuse their women (most of them are muslim).

    Women have and had every opportunity to be equally as successful throughout history as men. They haven’t done so. (Note that I speak specifically of leadership positions. Women do many, many things way more gooder than men ever will… just as men do many, many things better than women do.)

    Elizabeth was a great ruler, I agree. However she is a statistical anomaly, not really a representation of every female any more than that lying sack of weasel vomit in the White House represents every man (or every black man… or even every democrat).

    I’m not kidding about appreciating the respectful disagreement. In an issue this touchy I’m surprised to receive such a courteous response. Thank you! You are well named.


    • Liberals Demise says:

      Golda Myer of Israel comes to my mind a a good female leader.

      Women just need to get rid of the men who won’t or will not lift the seat.
      There …….. it “must be RBTINI” time!!

    • proreason says:

      It’s simply a case of physical strength combined with women’s natural and traditional roles as child bearers and child raisers.

      Women who are busy rearing children don’t have the opporunity to prepare for leadership posistions nor the time to fill the role. It isn’t a coincidence that Elizabeth was child-less. Also, remember that the average lifespan until recently was 40 years or less. After a woman raised her children, she usually died in short order.

      And prior to the development of lightweight firearms, it was simply impossible for all but a handful of women to compete physically with men. Moreover, in earlier times, brute force was even more of a requirement than it is today (and don’t undersestimate brute force even now).

      So the lack of women in leadership roles isn’t a statistical anomoly….its a feature of the human race and human culture.

      The line of truth in your comments is that women and men do different things better than the other sex. One of the saddest failures of feminism is that for decades feminists have been forcing one sex or the other to do things that don’t come naturally. It has done damage to both sexes. Fortunately, we are starting to move away from that in recent years, as we have more women saying what is blatantly obvious to everybody. Men and women are different.

      One example that is women’s favor is organizational skills. In general, women seem to be able to organize things better than men. There are other example as well, but that one, to me at least, is obvious.

      Men on the other hand, seem to have a superior ability to fart loudly.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Then again pro, some child bearers dodge sniper bullets better than others.
      She probably asks for some one to pull her finger!!

  6. canary says:

    AngryD, at least you admit your a sexist, so we understand your obsession and effort in your research to back up your sexist belief. I consider Democratic Senator Shea-Porter’s comment to be sexist & misleading.
    But, one can not determine a woman’s ability to be successful using the number of women holding leadership positions, or being successful at business. Women have difficult roles especially in current times. When men no longer considered to be the provider, but the women are to work also, there is an unbalance in most situations, but not all. Many men still expect the women to be the main care-taker of the children, clean house, do the bills, and not be tired at bed-time. Momma’s baby, Daddy’s maybe tendency. So, women can be spread thin, and priorities should be feeding, schooling & raising their children. It’s in a mother’s nature to put her family first.
    The comparison would be fair, if a man could be successful, leader,
    and do everything a wife & mother does too. Something ends up shorthanded. Not sure how old you are, how experienced you are, what kind of life you live, or how successful you are.
    Most common is when men & women divorce, women with custody of children are less full-filled than the man, who is not a parent 24/7.
    Women have gifts, men have gifts, and choices.
    Even Obama’s marriage had problems, as he was gone alot raising money and mingling with donors. Michelle, who was also working, having to work out home repairs, said she felt like she was raising their daughters on her own. And Obama felt as long as he didn’t expect a cooked meal when he got home being fair. So, there is this idea women work, and do it all, as Obama is all about himself. Of course, now it was all worth it. Because Obama has succeeded to an over the top powerful position, but is not successful at his job. The family functioning during his efforts most apt was not a success by his hands. So, there are many meanings as to what makes a man successful or not successful. The same goes for women.
    And many single women do a pretty good job at a successful career, and raising a family, in spite of dead-beat fathers.

  7. GetBackJack says:

    “Obama-Care Would Pass If Not For Men”

    Which is why I so revere our Founding Fathers so very much.

    Only propertied men could vote.

    Further, Deponent sayeth not.

  8. AngryD says:

    Canary, the very fact that you would try to use Obama, of all people, as a shining example of anything other than a complete and unmitigated disaster is a solid indication of where you stand in the political spectrum and how much you are willing to sacrifice on the altar of political correctness. You don’t have to LIKE the things I tell you, but until you can discount a solid fact like, “Women are fifty percent of the population but not fifty percent of the leaders” you really don’t have a case to even ATTEMPT to argue with me.

    You may wish to read my blog. I rather solidly rebutted a number of the words the ignorant throw at me, one of which was “sexist.” The fact that you SAY it does not make it so. The fact that you CLAIM I admitted it not only doesn’t make it so, it also makes you either too obtuse to read what I actually wrote or an outright liar.

    I don’t “obsess” over this. I study it as a sociological exercise along with such other apparent realities like “liberals are either delusional or bloody stupid.” I’ve found evidence to discount NEITHER theory, thank you. ANY social scientist studies with an open mind. I didn’t form my opinion and then go fact hunting, I looked at the facts and came to a conclusion based on them.

    I find it amazing that several people have responded already using the very arguments I already discounted: pointing to a FEW successful women does not invalidate my argument that they have had exactly the same amount of time and the same resources men have had in order to achieve success. If what you say is true and it is “in a mother’s nature to put her family first” than by that very definition ALONE women are obviously going to be less successful in any leadership role until they overcome that deficiency. It hampers them, and it is one reason my point is valid: women are not instinctively prepared for leadership roles. There is a flaw in their ability to fit into that role, and therefore they are less suitable for it than men are.

    Thanks for arguing MY side for me. It saves me a lot of time.

    You act like there has never been an unmarried father who was able to be a success as a leader within his field AND raise a decent child. By the way, you might want to do a little more research along the sociological lines, because children of single mothers account for almost 90% of all violent crime if I remember the statistic correctly. I don’t have it in front of me, and frankly, you need to learn to do your own research and not go around discounting the research others do, so either believe me or go look it up yourself. I don’t much care.

    To clarify your irrelevant points: I am almost 40 years old, a recognized expert in my chosen field, with three advanced degrees and two published works to my name. I am not a child, and you don’t really have the right to act as if I am one simply because I said something (researched and based in fact) that you can neither discount nor argue with.

    Straw man arguments like that rarely work with anyone, and they NEVER work with me. Stick to the facts. I don’t know or care who you are, how old you are, or what you do. We’re not discussing you and we’re not discussing me.

    As for proreason’s excellent point about women being “forced” into traditional roles of mother and care giver… this also continues to prove my point. If women were TRULY just as capable of success in any path they choose, men would not be able to force them into ANY role any more than THEY would be able to force MEN into an unwilling role.

    Furthermore, generations– EONS of that nurture and nature BOTH has effectively trained women for roles OTHER than managerial leadership. Therefore, by any real definition, women are NOT as effective in those roles.

    If you spend ten years training as a carpenter, you’re probably not going to be an instinctively great electrician. The fact that there may be one or two people out of a thousand who ARE instinctively great electricians even after spending the majority of their career in another field does not alter the fact that the vast majority will be lost, confused, and not successful at what they do.

    I do not agree with the argument that naked force is the reason why women are not in more positions of power. It has been a long time since naked force decided a leader in this country. (With the exceptions of New Black Panthers intimidating the elderly in Philadelphia.) In fact, it has been GENERATIONS. There is no reason other than incompetence to explain why more women are not in positions of regional or national authority.

    Look at the women who take office. Nanny Pelosi. Hillary Clinton. Barbara Boxer… The vast majority of these women are not competent for the offices they hold. Two of them represent California, the most liberal and progressive state– and the one with the most female representation in local and regional government.

    Is it it a coincidence that California’s economy is in shambles?

    The education profession is dominated by women. Is it a coincidence that education is falling apart?

    I submit that it MAY BE. That’s why I research this stuff: to find out whether or not there’s any veracity to the theory, but first I look at the facts and try to come to a conclusion that makes sense, and this happens to be one of them. Without the resources of a major university grant that I will never get because my research is “sexist” I’ll probably never be able to submit my points for peer review, but if my research continues to bear out this conclusion, I’m damn sure going to try.

    But I am absolutely sick and tired of the insipid old saw that “anything a man can do, a woman can do better” and “men have borked up the world, it’s time for them to step aside and let women take care of the mess they made.”

    Men run the world and we do it for a reason. If women would like to do so, there is one absolutely sure fire way to take charge: be better at it than we are.

    I am no kind of ‘ist’ other than realist. I don’t dislike Obama because he’s black, I dislike him because he’s incompetent and has never succeeded at ANYTHING but reading a teleprompter well enough to fool useful idiots into voting for him, most of whom now regret that and are seemingly surprised at what he’s doing.

    I don’t dislike Nancy Pelosi because of what dangles or doesn’t. I dislike her because she uses her personal agenda to keep my country downtrodden in the name of her own power. She’d rather save the ‘planet’ than drill for our own damn energy when families are on food stamps and people are paying $3.00 at the pump. I find that contemptible.

    I am not a sexist, I simply seek to discover if there is a connection between the way women think and lead and the lack of women in public office and controlling huge firms and the conclusion I’ve come to is simply that not more are in charge because on the whole, they aren’t that good at it.

    Certain RARE EXCEPTIONS break the mold. The pullups champion in my high school was a girl twenty years ago. Does that mean that ALL women have greater upper body strength than men do? It does not. In any random sampling of men and women, men are considerably stronger than women. Why can we not also accept that men may also be more competent in certain roles than women as well?

    Okay, folks. I’m tired and this topic no longer interests me. I’ll do you the courtesy of giving you the last word. Proreason, please don’t mistake my VEHEMENCE for VITRIOL. I tend to use forceful language. It doesn’t mean that I’m offended or angry and hope I don’t offend or anger you. I appreciate your points, whether I agree with them or not.

    Thanks for the discussion. I hope to encounter you in other topics!


    • proreason says:

      I didn’t say women were forced into anything.

      Misrepresenting arguments doesn’t help your case, which is dumb anyway.

  9. canary says:

    ANGRYD, didn’t mean to make you angry, when you already are.

    “Women are fifty percent of the population but not fifty percent of the leaders” you really don’t have a case to even ATTEMPT to argue with me.

    depends on your definition of a leader and a leader at what.

    Oh, you call me ignorant, liar, obtuse. Such name calling, when perhaps you should reword the post you referred to yourself as a sexist.

    “If what you say is true and it is “in a mother’s nature to put her family first” than by that very definition ALONE women are obviously going to be less successful in any leadership role until they overcome that deficiency.”

    So, you can say putting a family first, raising children, cooking, cleaning, and doing all, so the man can become successful, wouldn’t be a woman helping a man become successful? Shouldn’t she get some credit. Or if men & women don’t get married, have no other focus, then there would be no families or children.

    ” women are not instinctively prepared for leadership roles. There is a flaw in their ability to fit into that role, and therefore they are less suitable for it than men are.”

    Now that is sexist remark.

    “By the way, you might want to do a little more research along the sociological lines, because children of single mothers account for almost 90% of all violent crime if I remember the statistic correctly.”

    Do you think there is a failure for men to step up to the plate, by such a large statistic you found somewhere? Is this a flaw, as men are not suitable to raise families or children? Some need that is centers only on himself.

    “To clarify your irrelevant points: I am almost 40 years old, a recognized expert in my chosen field, with three advanced degrees and two published works to my name.”

    So does that mean you chose to be a leader? Did a wife help you. Have you had dinner around the family table lately?

    Did your mother change your diaper, and feed you, teach you, care for you, so you could be so successful, or were you born with super-powers.

    “Look at the women who take office. Nanny Pelosi. Hillary Clinton. Barbara Boxer… ”

    I agree, but research tells me there are 48% more men in office not fit to lead.

    “it’s time for them to step aside and let women take care of the mess they made.”

    You are really putting to much stigma into people you don’t even know, and you’re a bit of a mess for a woman to do anything for, as she would not want to be treated like a dog. And with your anger, might get kicked around alot, and put in her place. Good luck finding a woman of your equal. You could create & give out tests, or take her to dog-training classes, though that might interfere with your being, and not worth your time, and why waste hers.

    I appreciate your conservatism, but you do have a little in common with Obama in the personality division. So, you just very well may get a successful position if you can b.s. you way that far.

    p.s. you might be “happy” living in China, where women are born a status below men, and selective birth leads to more men & success.

  10. jobeth says:

    AngryD, respectfully, after visiting your website I know you would be taken more seriously if you were a little less inflammatory in your use of wording.

    However, after having read your web page, it’s clear you enjoy flaming people who disagree with you. Shame, because some of your positions are good. You just demean yourself with your ranting and foul language there. More people can be won over to a conservative position without flaming them.

    You sound as though you are fed up with women (and other minorities) whining they are discriminated against. I believe you will find most of us here are as well. But that also includes men who live in self imposed victim-hood. Its not about %s. Each individual should be held accountable.

    I don’t need to rehash the excellent arguments that have already appeared here about how unfair blanket stereotypes are.

    Most of us here are big supporters of personal responsibility. So we agree with your position there. I find the guys here treat us women on this website with as much respect as they have for other men. And the respect is returned.

    Its what we say, how we say it that merits that respect. All of us. Same with women in business. But I know you understand that and don’t have to be told.

    Again, with respect, after having read your web page, I find you have some valid opinions and most of us here would agree with you on many of them.

    However you demean yourself and your position by your disrespectful ranting and flaming at anyone who doesn’t agree with you. You seem to feel if you can “put them down” in a flurry of foul disrespectful quips you “got them” or “showed them”.

    What you accomplish with that demeanor is to turn off anyone who might be on the cusp of understanding your position.

    I saw a major difference in your response to Pro…who deserved your respect and got it, and your response to Canary, who also deserved your respect…and did NOT get it? Why? She did nothing to illicit your dismissive response. You may not know this of Canary, but she is a very intelligent woman. She digs up her facts and shares them. Her opinions are expressed with reason and intelligence.

    I really hope you are getting help for your anger problem. I mean that sincerely…I’m not being sarcastic. I think you will find people a lot less troublesome when you treat people as you enjoyed being treated by Pro. You will be a happier person if you don’t hold on to so much anger, especially at women. Some of us are pretty darn nice people.

    Respect is offered once for free. After that it must be earned. You must give respect to get it.

    You actually have a lot of good opinions, you just turn off anyone who may want to understand or have a genuine difference of opinion
    And that is a shame.

    Being a woman, I fully expect to get the same treatment that Canary got from you. It won’t matter and I won’t respond to it. I just hope you do some thinking about your delivery when you are in the quiet of your thoughts at night. I hope you stop doing this to yourself. While you have some good ideas…you come across as an idiot. Too bad for you.

    • proreason says:

      Jobeth and Canary, AngryD has at least one thing in common with liberals.

      His arguments are based on emotion, not logic.

      There are too many examples to go into them all, but the one linking Pelosi/Boxer to the economic disaster in California is striking. Those women aren’t in the California government at all. There are more men than women in the California government. Every recent governor of Califonia has been a man. Yet he ties California’s trouble to women. Go figger.

      Here’s a more interesting question to contemplate than Angry’s silly hypothesis……..how many successful men are or have been angry at women, ever? If you can think of a single one, I’d be surprised. Even men (and women) who resent the feminazi’s aren’t angry at women in general. Quite the contrary. It’s almost impossible to harbor that kind of a grudge against half the world. Angry needs to slow down and think about what he’s doing to himself. And he needs to turn his anger on people who are really trying to do harm to the country. There’s more than enough of them to occupy his time.

    • jobeth says:

      Thanks Pro…I, among many others really appreciate you. ;-D

  11. canary says:

    How can you determine women are not successful in politics, when the reason is less women make the attempt, as they have families to take care.

    Why do you blame women for CA’s failure, when the number of failing men politicians far outweigh the number of women in California. Enormous number of political males, mostly Democrat, may when an election, but winning a political race, or holding office, does not make them success.

    You leave out the larger number of California men politicans who have failed CA.

    While there are differences between men & women, you left out the successful women in politics, yet alone Sarah Palin.

    Palin’s husband in an interview talked about taking the women’s normal role in the family, to be more difficult than a normal job, but did so to support his wife to be successful, and in no way makes him a failure.

    The topic was woman Democrat saying an untruth, as many women voted against health care. Even Senator Snow was complaining of the corruptness the Democrats were using.

    There is no way of measuring 3 million years ago, But, there is the theory that bigger cave men, beat their wives with clubs and dragged them by their hair. So, as Obama was taught by his step-father. The stronger man wins.

    I was hoping you’d appreciate your mother raising you to be such a confident ambitious person.

  12. jobeth says:

    Canary, If you visit his website you will see, it’s more about his ‘showing everyone’ the error of their ways than the topic he names. He’s in it for the argument. He likes to duel.

    He will attempt to engage you forever if you let him.

    Personally, I’ve said my piece and knew his reaction would be what it is, so I am not responding to his continual rantings on topics that I disagree (or agree) with . He is entitled to rant, but if no one responds to him he will rant into the wind.

    We have an excellent site here where we discuss topics and differing opinions with respect. In my humble opinion, our site is not a good fit for him, however, it’s not my call. Who I respond to is up to me though and I’ve said my piece.

    I don’t quote the Bible often here but my favorite verse fits.
    “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” Romans 1:22

  13. Rip Cord says:

    Hmmmm that’s funny. Wasn’t it Sarah Palin, a woman if I remember correctly, who helped kill this thing with the exposure of the “Death Panel” provision of this bill? Liberals, can’t get anything right especially feminism. LOL

    • jobeth says:

      Rip…Yep…she had lots of accomplishments under her belt.

      Oddly enough though, this guy claims to be a conservative on his blog. It’s his methods that come across like a liberal. ;-D

« Front Page | To Top
« | »